Segacs’s World I Know

The racists at Concordia are at it again. This time, they’ve decided to revive the ridiculous “ethno-bomb” story. In an anonymous user comment on the Link’s website – to a story lauding anti-Israel journalist Robert Fisk, no less – regular poster “ii” cites an article from a fringe extremist website called the World Socialist Web Site that claims that the United States is trying to develop chemical weapons that will target only Arabs in Iraq:

In other words, A SCIENTIFICALLY PERFECTED FORM OF RACE WAR could become an instrument of imperialist conquest. Were such a weapon available today, it could presumably be used to “liberate” Iraq by murdering its entire Arab population while leaving US troops and the country’s oilfields unscathed. (emphasis added by commentator)

Although perhaps in the planning stage, it seems clear that at least the Pentagon is indeed working towards such a weapon, an “ethno-bomb.”

This racist accusation, usually levelled against Israel, was published yet again just weeks ago in an SPHR publication and distributed at Concordia, even despite the moratorium that was still in effect, and despite the clearly racist (not to mention utterly preposterous and unrealistic) nature of the accusation itself.

While it’s tempting to write off comments posted on the Link’s site as irrelevant, I’ve noticed that they tend to be representative of what’s going on behind the scenes. Many people say things anonymously on web boards that they’d never say in public or write with a byline, because they know how badly it would reflect upon them. But they think that by posting it online, without a name, they can say what they really truly think. And, judging by some of the postings over there, what they truly think is damn scary.

Alouettes win the Grey Cup!

Not that I give a rat’s ass about football. But with the Expos on their way to sunny Puerto Rico, and the Habs (at this rate) going straight to the golf course once the post-season starts, it’s nice that Montreal has at least one team that wins something once in a while.

A bunch of people have been asking me about that National Geographic survey, in which 11% of Americans couldn’t pick their own country off a map. Not that Canada did so great either, mind you. But test yourself – sample some survey questions online and see how you do. Then try to tell me that the world’s not in serious trouble.

(Link via Chen’s board).

Costly mistake for Israel:

The Israeli army admitted its forces killed a U.N. official, saying they mistook an object he was holding in his hand for a weapon during a heated battle with Palestinian gunmen in the Jenin refugee camp.

Logically speaking, there’s no way this was anything but an honest mistake. The Israeli army has absolutely no motive to target a UN worker – and plenty of counter-motivation. And in the middle of battle, I wouldn’t want to have to be the soldier trying to distinguish a cell phone from a weapon in a split second that could mean life or death. But none of that’s going to stop the UN from making Israel pay heavily. I’m not looking forward to seeing the fallout.

According to CAMERA, National Geographic has been up to more these days than simply counting the percentage of Americans who can’t pick their own country off a world map. Namely, printing a ten-page article by Andrew Cockburn entitled “Lines in the Sand: Deadly Times in the West Bank and Gaza”, which appeared in the October 2002 issue and spent, apparently, most of the time bashing Israel and misrepresenting its history.

The ten-page National Geographic piece, filled with maps, chronologies and anti-Israel dogma, casts that nation as either overtly or indirectly guilty at every turn for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while Arab aggression is almost entirely omitted.

I remember back more than ten years, to the Gulf War. I was eleven and in the fifth grade, and, like most fifth-graders, more preoccupied with friends and schoolwork than international politics (although I remember being terrified that Saddam Hussein would launch a missile through my bedroom window). My Hebrew teacher was trying to explain why Iraq was launching missiles at Israel, and why Israel wasn’t fighting back. She said something like (and forgive the paraphrasing) “historically, Israel’s always been the “good guy” at war but the “bad guy” in world opinion. By exercising restraint this time around, Israel’s becoming the “good guy” in world opinion and the “bad guy” at war.”” I was very confused at the time, because since I was old enough to remember, Israel had been riding a high in terms of international opinion, and I was yet unaware that there were people who hated Israel.

Sadly, it appears she was right. By reading the National Geographic piece, one could easily forget that Israel was defending itself against annihilation in 1948, 1967, 1973 (the article doesn’t even mention the Yom Kippur War on its timeline), and now again. It seems that Israel’s act of goodwill in the Gulf War was quickly forgotten by a world with an extremely short memory, and all that Israel accomplished by not striking back was to look all that much weaker to its enemies.

The following comment is from the Canada-Israel Committee’s Q&A:

The Jerusalem Post recently observed that “If the Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence; if Israel put down its weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Palestinian terrorist groups work from a different set of rules, viewing Israeli concessions as signs of weakness. Previous experience suggests no reason to believe that unilateral Israeli concessions will end Palestinian violence.

Whenever I hear people comment that Israel doesn’t consider world opinion enough, or that it is too aggressive in its policies, I need only remember all the concessions that Israel has made, and how they have been met by rebuffs and step-ups in violence. If anything, Israel is being far too restrained – much more so than, say, the United States’s reaction to September 11th. Had Israel reacted to earlier terror attacks by launching all-out military incursions against the Palestinian terror groups and hunting down Arafat the way the US is hunting down Osama Bin Laden, there would surely have been an international outcry that far surpassed what we are seeing today. There would also be no more terror attacks against Israel. And, with the terrorist networks disbanded, the stage would be set for real negotiations with the Palestinian people.

This National Geographic article is hardly unique, but serves as a bitter reminder of how the history of the past 50 years has been rewritten.

In yet another sorry example of mob rule, the Miss World Pageant has quit Nigeria in response to riots. It will now be held in London, where presumably it will offend less fundamentalist Muslims.

Now, I’m no particular fan of beauty pageants, but rioting against this one cost 105 people their lives. The cost was even higher when you factor in the fact that this is yet another victory for those who choose violence as a means of expression. Like the cancelled Netanyahu speech at Concordia, it seems that the only people left with freedom are people who riot.

If they keep winning, they’ll keep resorting to violence, and sooner or later the whole world will be under Sha’ira (Islamic law) because nobody had the guts to fight back. It is okay to object to something. It’s NOT okay to violently force everyone to think the way you do, or to act according to your wishes.

Anyone ever try watching a Kevin Smith movie with the swearing censored?

Chasing Amy was on TV tonight – but all the swear words were replaced with, I suppose, what the people who decide these things considered more genteel words. But Chasing Amy, like all the Kevin Smith movies, is all about the dialogue, of course. And censoring it just plain ruins it. As my friend’s bro, Richard, says, “The movie starts, they’re signing comic books. The movie ends, they’re signing comic books. But where’s the rest of the movie? Where’s the whole middle?”

I mean, try watching an entire scene where they debate the definition of the word “fuck” but they can’t actually say the word.

In the post-9/11 U.S., firefighters have become heroes, showered with media worship. But in England, their pedestal is considerably lower. The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has been on strike. They want more money, and I guess they don’t care who fights the fires while they fight for a raise.

Granted, the Brits seem to love to strike. From the day last July when I arrived back in London to witness the absolute chaos caused by an Underground workers strike, to the teachers, to anyone else who thinks their paycheck is too small, it seems that nobody over there in jolly old England ever goes to work.

But firefighters??? Whatever happened to the concept of an “essential service”? Labour law may have its own quirks around here, but it would only take about 30 seconds for the government to order striking firefighters back to work. Just as they did nurses, and teachers. After all, who else is going to fight the fires?

Apparently, the army:

About 19,000 army, navy and airforce personnel — a tenth of the country’s forces — have been drafted in as cover, using outdated “green goddess” fire engines up to 50 years old.

So now they can’t even use modern fire trucks???

London’s a great city, but something’s sure screwy over there.

(Thanks to Jon and Tom for input on this one.)

I was pretty upset at the recent news of talks between Hamas and Fatah, that were reported in the international media in such a way that made it seem as though Fatah wanted suicide bombings stopped.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the militant (read: terrorist) wing of Fatah, is strongly in favour of suicide bombings, but only within what they refer to as the “occupied territories”. Hamas sees all of Israel as fair game, and doesn’t draw territorial distinctions.

Well, neither do I. Since when is it okay to kill innocent people in some zip codes and not others?

Lynn at In Context phrases it better than I ever could:

There’s this thing, this distinction, going around about terrorist attacks that happen “in Israel” versus attacks that happen “in the territories.” Or between attacks on “civilians” versus attacks on soldiers or “settlers.”

It seems that if you live in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights or the Gaza Strip, you’re fair game anywhere, according to this philosophy. And if you happen to be in any of those places at any given time, regardless of where you live, you’re also fair game. It’s this philosophy that led some to suggest that the attack on Kibbutz Metzer last week was somehow more repulsive than a similar attack would have been in, say, Kiryat Arba.

There are no “good terrroists” and “bad terrorists”. There are only bad terrorists.